As for your question-yes the aircraft is a mix between the two aircraft for maneuverability. It has the energy addition of an f-16 and rates like a viper as well. However, it has the high aoa ability and radius of an f-18. A slick block 50 viper in an airshow config may outrate you a bit but you have the radius and aoa to beat him as well as power to match. A slick hornet may have a better radius by a bit but you can outrate him. You are better than all of those jets with ordnance regardless of the fight. The yaw rate is pretty eye opening. There are definitely advantages using the pedal turn but it’s definitely not a magic move. Has to be used at the right time and place, otherwise you’re setting yourself up to get beat due to a lack of energy. You can’t snap a pedal turn on at 350 kts, you have to be slower.

He said he was a former Hornet driver, and has Viper and Rhino time as well. Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. It also, IMO, shows why the Viper drivers in the original PDF article went from two wing tanks, to a single centerline tank, and finally ended up trying to fly slick against the Lightnings. Sounds like the Lightning drivers had answers for all the moves once they had learned how to fight the jet.

Last edited by steve2267 on 09 Apr 2018, 19:26, edited 1 time in total.

Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.

The transmit-receive cells are fully functional at broadband and narrow band radio frequencies. In the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz, the active antenna system would operate as a radar system. In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming. Either application would find a place on an advanced aircraft or space based sensor systems because of weight and size restrictions.

Yes, that's one common misconception that AESA systems are restricted to X-band only also when used for EW. GaAs systems are pretty much restricted to X-band when operating as radar, but as EW systems the frequency range can be significantly wider. Only the output power levels are likely reduced. Of course EW systems generally have far lower output power levels than radar systems in legacy aircraft. Future GaN modules can have much wider bandwidth coverage without sacrificing output power. Future GaN AESA systems will likely have really incredible jamming capabilities.

Good find, btw. That was what was state-of-the-art 30 years ago. Just imagine what can be done today...

While that may be true (although I note it is a patent application and not a production radar specifications so the actual capability of the APG-81 is still in question) it doesn't change the basic fact that is still above the frequency bands of AEW and early warning radars, especially 2D ones.

usnvo wrote:While that may be true (although I note it is a patent application and not a production radar specifications so the actual capability of the APG-81 is still in question) it doesn't change the basic fact that is still above the frequency bands of AEW and early warning radars, especially 2D ones.

Sure and there is definitely reason to have systems like Growler and/or NGJ against them. Of course those low band radars are very large, expensive and low in numbers. They can only provide early warning and direct higher frequency radars and thus are less dangerous. Of course F-35 EW suite should be able to detect them and know their effective Most threatening radars operate in frequencies where F-35 EW system is likely effective.

True that it was a patent application, but those are not made just for fun. That was 30 years ago and AESA technology has evolved immensely during that time. They realised that narrowband radar and wideband EW functions can be done with single system even with technology at the time and made a patent application for that. Of course radar requires a lot of power and EW systems generally require a very wide bandwidth. However increasing power is difficult without narrowing bandwidth as is widening bandwidth without lowering power. I bet that AN/APG-81 has the best performance in X-band and likely jamming power will get lower as frequency gets lower. What the limits are is really difficult to say and I'm sure we'll likely never get definitive answer to that.

hornetfinn wrote: ...and likely jamming power will get lower as frequency gets lower. What the limits are is really difficult to say and I'm sure we'll likely never get definitive answer to that.

But even at 2 gigahertz the illumination should be relatively easy to jam/mask, if maintaining adequate radial distance---inverse-square law and all.

" ...The inverse-square law, in physics, is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. The fundamental cause for this can be understood as geometric dilution corresponding to point-source radiation into three-dimensional space (see diagram).

Radar energy expands during both the signal transmission and also on the reflected return, so the inverse square for both paths means that the radar will receive energy according to the inverse fourth power of the range. ..."

Thus you don't need a lot of radial distance increase to make EW jam-masking effective as jamming power decreases. i.e. MDF could inform the pilot of what radial distance they need for masking to be effective.

The real vulnerabity will be at longer than 10 centimeter wavelengths. Hence EW decoys (MALD).

Seems to me there's no reason directional UHF to VHF MALD-type masking tech could not also be integrated on the F-35 too, from the outset.

Last edited by element1loop on 10 Apr 2018, 08:58, edited 2 times in total.

steve2267 wrote:Here is a Lightning driver's response to my question(s):

As for your question-yes the aircraft is a mix between the two aircraft for maneuverability. It has the energy addition of an f-16 and rates like a viper as well. However, it has the high aoa ability and radius of an f-18. A slick block 50 viper in an airshow config may outrate you a bit but you have the radius and aoa to beat him as well as power to match. A slick hornet may have a better radius by a bit but you can outrate him. You are better than all of those jets with ordnance regardless of the fight. The yaw rate is pretty eye opening. There are definitely advantages using the pedal turn but it’s definitely not a magic move. Has to be used at the right time and place, otherwise you’re setting yourself up to get beat due to a lack of energy. You can’t snap a pedal turn on at 350 kts, you have to be slower.

This is awesome Steve,

Can you ask him if he can share some DACT stories, I noticed that Tomcat, Eagle, Viper, Hornet and Rhino pilots have no problem sharing their DACT experiences.

But Raptor and Lightning pilots are pretty reserved? Curious, we know that WVR combat is something that they will rarely experience and is actually not their primary strength even if they are better at it than anyone else.

"...So why all this mystery on how they conduct BFM?" For a start USAF recently started a long pause in PR spokepeeps for OPsec reasons. Ya reckon F-35/F-22 pilots are involved in that? How about NON USAF F-35 pilots? Hence article above at top of first page that started this thread. Sheesh. viewtopic.php?f=58&t=53958&p=390664#p390664

Like Morten Hanche, the Norwegian F-35 pilot who has described the performance in many occasions. He has a lot of experience with F-16 and also some with Hornets. Those quotes can be easily found here. Like the "turbo engined Hornet". Here is a good one:

Overall I can say that a stripped-down F-16 has slightly better sustained turn rate than the F-35. However, an F-35 has the advantage with regards to getting inside the turn of its opponent. In a dogfight between the F-16 and the F-35 they will therefore both have strengths to play on.

Of course there is also this:

So how does this apply in the case of an engagement between the F-16 and the F-35? It depends, and it particularly depends on how the F-16 is loaded. A stripped-down F-16 is a formidable opponent to anyone in BFM. However, this changes quickly when we dress the F-16 up for combat. If we are to compare the F-16 and F-35 on an equal basis, we must assume that the F-16 will be carrying both external fuel, a «jamming pod» for electronic warfare, weapon mounts for bombs, missiles and a camera pod for target acquisition and illumination. With this loadout, the F-16´s performance is significantly reduced: The maximum angle of attack is reduced by 40% (the ability to move the nose away from the direction of travel), the roll rate is lowered, the maximum allowable airspeed is reduced and the g-limitations are stricter.

People don't seem to get that fighter aircraft need fuel, weapons, targeting pods and pylons to go into combat. With F-35 all or most of that is internal and doesn't affect performance much if at all. In 4th gen aircraft the effect is much bigger as most of the stuff is external. It really doesn't matter what the performance is when slick as no aircraft is going to combat in that configuration.

Yes Euro English speakin' F-35 pilotes are a blessing (OK I'll include RAF crabs) for knowledge of flying qualities of the F-35. Heck I'll even include test pilots of the ilk of that CANUCKian goggle-eyed chap whathisname. There are lots of OLD quotes from 'merican pilotes but who's lookin'. This forum is filled with good quotes about the good F-35 but peeps only remember that one test pilot report from yonks ago. I can sigh all I want but whatever - obviously the F-35 is a BEAST!

Besides, I don't get the fascination with one-on-one gunfights. In real life it's likely very rare for on-on-one gunfight to happen especially with modern fighters. Even one-on-one dogfight with missiles is rather rare. It's usually many-vs-many situation where superior long-range SA is the key for gaining initial advantage. This is where stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, networking and EW are the key and this is where F-35 excels at.

Of course even in realistic WVR situation the superior SA is great thing to have. F-35 is bristling with sensors and sensor fusion to constantly have great SA about the situation. For example 4-vs-4 furball is likely very difficult for human to constantly know exactly where friendlies and enemies are. F-35 sensors and sensor fusion will know this constantly and in all conditions with high degree of probability (of course nothing is perfect). Then stealth is going to make it more difficult for enemy sensors and missiles to target and hit F-35 especially given all the self defence systems in F-35. I think this is something not really modeled in air combat training.

Yeah but all these comments just go round in circles on and on much like a stalemate dogfight (usual same aircraft - not DACT) until someone does something stupid. So the same comments about dogfighting go round and round until someone says something stupid (does this qualify?) and then we stop. I hope. But I'll sigh and sigh again and again because....

anyway, it could be that. I'm just curious on how Tailgate can openly share his F-15 tactics but when asked about the Raptor its just....."well I can't talk too much about it....but I'm telling you its awesome".

I'm not saying he should say anything, if its Opsec then its better kept. All I'm saying is, they're obviously keeping something...thats all, I don't need to know what it is, but they're keeping it, that much I'm sure.

Lets see why is everyone talking dogfights? Because it's cool,

an E2D can share more data, the new airforce one probably runs more lines of code a Burke class destroyer is better BVR platform. but nobody talks about it. at least not that much.

basketball is a team sport, but everyone talks about LeBron vs KD or Curry vs Kyrie, etc etc. one on one is cool and you can't stop people talking about it no matter how unlikely it is.

Thinking some more about the quote i just posted, I note that the LD did not say anything new -- there were no new revelations. All that he stated is out there in the public domain in one way or another. Whether it be quotes or tweets from Berke, quotes from LM test pilots, esp. Billie Flynn, or articles by Dolbe Hanche.

The Viper is still regarded as a fearsome BFM machine when stripped slick, said to be the equal of the Typhoon up to 10K (or is it 15K?) feet altitude, but doesn't have low speed / high nose chops. The Hornet is regarded as being exceptionally dangerous because of its high alpha nose pointing capability, but somewhat of a dog once it has bled away its energy (i.e. the F/A-18 platform does not regain or hold energy terribly well). If those two are still respected, are still dangerous in their respective areas of strength, how much more dangerous is the F-35 if it combines the strengths of both, adds incredible sensors + sensor fusion (= incredible SA), carries gobs of gas, oh yeah, and you can't target it with your "normal" sensors?

Maybe the "nickname" for the F-35 should be savante, as it is the idiot savante of the tactical aviation world -- doing everything better than everyone else without even trying -- effortlessly.

Oh, want to play the rate game? Ok, I can hang with you there, or maybe I'll just kill my speed (bleed off a hundred knots) -- out radius / turn inside you -- and kill you now. Hanche made specific note in one of his blogs how quickly the F-35 bleeds speed -- stops faster than the family car is what I think he said. But there are no airbrakes sticking out there like an F-15 or F-16. I wonder if the visual signature that an F-35 has put on the brakes is rather subdued -- not very telling to enema pilots. Might that delayed recognition be a few more seconds in the Lightning driver's fight ledger?

But former Hornet pilots rave about four engines, or "a turbo". Viper pilots compare it to a Block 50 Viper (possibly with a single centerline tank) in terms of acceleration. One of the first comments from a new Lightning pilot is almost invariably about how much power the engine has. So the Lightning driver can re-gain that lost energy PDQ (pretty darn quick for you non-merics) as (s)he needs.

I keep recalling Billie Flynn's comment about overlaying the E-M diagram of the F-35 on top of any 4th gen fighter and the F-35 is better. The press had a field day with that quote. No one believed him. The haters went bonkers. But more and more, a quote here, a tidbit there... I think that Flynn was absolutely truthful. The Viper pilot who flew against Lt Col Gunn (viewtopic.php?p=383045#p383045) a 2nd time and was amazed at the F-35 performance the second time. The Vipers starting with two EFTs, dropping them for a single centerline, then flying slick in this current article.

I marvel at how LM achieved the performance they have in the F-35. It truly appears to be cutting edge in every way. IMO, the F-35 is the logical evolution of the F-16: take an F-16, stuff all the fuel it will need inside, plus stuff two AIM-120's, two 1-ton bombs inside, slather on stealth, give it twin tails (stealth + high alpha), oh, and make it land like a Harrier, only easier (and don't forget all those electronic doodaad pilot aids to make A-7 pilots swoon)... the F-35 has got to be about the smallest platform that would achieve all that.

Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.